Double Jeopardy under Indian Constitution
Double Jeopardy under Indian Constitution
Double Jeopardy is a legal principle that protects an individual from being tried or punished more than once for the same offence. Under the Indian Constitution, this protection is enshrined in Article 20(2).
🔹 Article 20(2) – Protection Against Double Jeopardy
Text of Article 20(2):
"No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."
✅ Key Elements of Double Jeopardy in India:
Applies Only to Criminal Offences:
This protection is available only in cases of criminal prosecution, not civil or administrative actions.
Prosecution and Punishment Must Both Occur:
Both prosecution and punishment must have occurred for Article 20(2) to apply.
Mere prosecution without punishment does not attract protection.
Same Offence:
The second prosecution must be for the same offence. If it is a different offence, even if arising from the same facts, the protection does not apply.
Judicial Proceeding Required:
The earlier prosecution must be before a court of law or a judicial tribunal, not an internal disciplinary body or administrative agency.
🔹 Related Doctrine in Criminal Law: Autrefois Convict and Autrefois Acquit
These are common law principles incorporated into Indian law:
Autrefois Convict – Previously convicted for the same offence.
Autrefois Acquit – Previously acquitted of the same offence.
These doctrines prevent re-trial for the same offence.
🔹 Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973
This section reinforces the principle of double jeopardy:
Section 300(1):
A person who has once been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted shall not be tried again for the same offence.
🏛️ Leading Case Laws
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)
The Supreme Court held that proceedings before a customs authority (not a court of law) do not count as "prosecution" under Article 20(2).
Therefore, subsequent criminal prosecution was not barred.
S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954)
Departmental inquiry and dismissal from service was not considered prosecution and punishment under Article 20(2).
Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab (1959)
Reaffirmed that Article 20(2) applies only when a person has already been prosecuted and punished for the same offence.
✅ Summary
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Article | Article 20(2) |
| Scope | Criminal cases only |
| Requirements | Prior prosecution + punishment + same offence |
| Exceptions | Civil cases, departmental inquiries, different offences |
RELATED Blog
0 comments